Saudis break ties with US (Obama)

[Dante]

thread

 

[Dante]

I find the rightwing responses on this thread curious

We know you hate all things Obama but are you actually siding with Iran and Syria on this issue?

I find your observations of responses in this thread asinine and childish.

Are you actually going to side with the children?

Not an answer
First off the OP is a lie in that Saudis have not severed ties, nor will they

Secondly, I repeat my question

Are Conservatives on this board demanding an invasion of Syria and opposing trying to negotiate a nuclear disarmament with Iran? If you support the Saudi Princes on this then you are

Flame zone or rubber room?

 

[KissMy]

Obama wanted to attack Assad's regime in Syria. It was Congress who sided with Russia & stopped him. Obama & Saudi wanted to eliminate Assad's regime in order to restore peace in the region, run a huge Gas Pipeline through Syria to hurt Russia & Iran & re-open the old "Silk Road" trade route. Congress screwed us again. Obama should have acted without congressional approval. Saudi & France would have paid the entire cost of the US attack, so Obama did not need congress to approve any money for the attack.

"Saudi diplomats now promise a 'major shift' in relations with the U.S. over inaction in the conflict in Syria Prince Turki al-Faisal called Obama's policies in Syria 'lamentable' and ridiculed a U.S.-Russian deal to eliminate Assad's chemical weapons. He suggested it was a ruse to let Obama avoid military action in Syria.

'The current charade of international control over Bashar's chemical arsenal would be funny if it were not so blatantly perfidious. And designed not only to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to back down (from military strikes), but also to help Assad to butcher his people,' said Prince Turki, a member of the Saudi royal family and former director of Saudi intelligence."

 

[Edgetho]

I find the rightwing responses on this thread curious

We know you hate all things Obama but are you actually siding with Iran and Syria on this issue?

I find your observations of responses in this thread asinine and childish.

Are you actually going to side with the children?

Not an answer
First off the OP is a lie in that Saudis have not severed ties, nor will they

Secondly, I repeat my question

Are Conservatives on this board demanding an invasion of Syria and opposing trying to negotiate a nuclear disarmament with Iran? If you support the Saudi Princes on this then you are

Then take it up with the newspaper that printed the article. All the OP did was copy that

 

[rightwinger]

Obama wanted to attack Assad's regime in Syria. It was Congress who sided with Russia & stopped him. Obama & Saudi wanted to eliminate Assad's regime in order to restore peace in the region, run a huge Gas Pipeline through Syria to hurt Russia & Iran & re-open the old "Silk Road" trade route. Congress screwed us again. Obama should have acted without congressional approval.

"Saudi diplomats now promise a 'major shift' in relations with the U.S. over inaction in the conflict in Syria Prince Turki al-Faisal called Obama's policies in Syria 'lamentable' and ridiculed a U.S.-Russian deal to eliminate Assad's chemical weapons. He suggested it was a ruse to let Obama avoid military action in Syria.

'The current charade of international control over Bashar's chemical arsenal would be funny if it were not so blatantly perfidious. And designed not only to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to back down (from military strikes), but also to help Assad to butcher his people,' said Prince Turki, a member of the Saudi royal family and former director of Saudi intelligence."

So it seems Prince Turkey is not even speaking for the Saudi government

So, everyone who has opposed US policy on this thread and support the Saudis

Do you support invading Syria as our foreign policy?

 

[g5000]

Have you been paying attention to this? Jordan and the UAE has indicated they will follow the Saudis into a break with the US. Saudi Arabia has been an ally of the US since 1932. It took obama to end that.

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

The article plainly says they are considering severing ties due to our INACTION IN SYRIA.

Hmmm. Which party do you know of that INSISTED on inaction in Syria?

Here's a hint: McConnell says he won't support Syria strike

And which side of the specturm right here on this forum said arming the rebels would be aiding terrorists?

Hmmmmm...

 

[Edgetho]

Have you been paying attention to this? Jordan and the UAE has indicated they will follow the Saudis into a break with the US. Saudi Arabia has been an ally of the US since 1932. It took obama to end that.

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

The article plainly says they are severing ties due to our INACTION IN SYRIA.

Hmmm. Which party do you know of that INSISTED on inaction in Syria?

Here's a hint: McConnell says he won't support Syria strike

How many times in here did you fight and argue about how obama won the confrontation with Assad and Putin?

Dozens? Hundreds?

If not you, then certainly your fellow travelers did.

As to who asked for action in Syria?

John McRINO and other Republicans were behind that for a LONG time.

When it was still possible to make a difference, when it was still a good idea.

All the Stuttering Clusterfuck did was make excuses and a bad deal when the Syrians gassed some people.

 

[Kondor3]

The Saudis may have some oil, but, militarily, they're nothing.

The Rhode Island chapter of the Girl Scouts could take them out, metaphorically speaking.

 

[g5000]

Saudi Arabia warns U.S. that policy on Syria, Iran straining decades-old alliance - CBS News

President Obama's move to back the Russian proposal to rid Syria of chemical weapons was seen by Saudi Arabia -- and virtually all Syrian opposition groups -- as an easy way for the White House to back down from its threat of air strikes against Assad, which Washington seemed poised to launch following a large-scale sarin gas attack on the outskirts of Damascus in August.

Once again, I ask you. Which party demanded we not do air strikes against Syria?

Do I need to drag up some posts on this forum to remind all of you who was against it?

 

[Hoffstra]

Saudi Arabia hasn't severed diplomatic, economic, and defense ties with the USA.

 

[Dot Com]

Have you been paying attention to this? Jordan and the UAE has indicated they will follow the Saudis into a break with the US. Saudi Arabia has been an ally of the US since 1932. It took obama to end that.

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

The article plainly says they are considering severing ties due to our INACTION IN SYRIA.

Hmmm. Which party do you know of that INSISTED on inaction in Syria?

Here's a hint: McConnell says he won't support Syria strike

And which side of the specturm right here on this forum said arming the rebels would be aiding terrorists?

Hmmmmm...

Katzy is a partisan hack of the highest order

As to the OP, yeah, they're not happy that we don't put our troops in harm's way DESPITE the fact that they have a ginormous weapons stockpile including US-supplied fighter jets.

 

[Hoffstra]

Saudi Arabia has NOT severed diplomatic, defense, and economic ties with the USA.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Good.

Most of the people involved in 9/11 were Saudi Nationals, including Osama Bin Laden. And there's pretty good evidence they funded it.

That's the place that should have been hit. Along with the camps in Afghanistan.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY]Obama Bows to Saudi King - YouTube[/ame]

 

[g5000]

Saudi Arabia has NOT severed diplomatic, defense, and economic ties with the USA.

Yes, the topic title is wrong. The news is reporting that Saudi Arabia is considering severing diplomatic ties, or at the very least that such ties are strained.

The strain is due to our inaction in Syria. Not aiding the rebels enough, and not striking Syria when Assad used chemical weapons against the rebels.

 

[Dante]

I find your observations of responses in this thread asinine and childish.

Are you actually going to side with the children?

Not an answer
First off the OP is a lie in that Saudis have not severed ties, nor will they

Secondly, I repeat my question

Are Conservatives on this board demanding an invasion of Syria and opposing trying to negotiate a nuclear disarmament with Iran? If you support the Saudi Princes on this then you are

Then take it up with the newspaper that printed the article. All the OP did was copy that

Would posting a lie be considered polarizing?


"Zone 2": Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads.

 

[Moonglow]

Obama wanted to attack Assad's regime in Syria. It was Congress who sided with Russia & stopped him. Obama & Saudi wanted to eliminate Assad's regime in order to restore peace in the region, run a huge Gas Pipeline through Syria to hurt Russia & Iran & re-open the old "Silk Road" trade route. Congress screwed us again. Obama should have acted without congressional approval. Saudi & France would have paid the entire cost of the US attack, so Obama did not need congress to approve any money for the attack.

"Saudi diplomats now promise a 'major shift' in relations with the U.S. over inaction in the conflict in Syria Prince Turki al-Faisal called Obama's policies in Syria 'lamentable' and ridiculed a U.S.-Russian deal to eliminate Assad's chemical weapons. He suggested it was a ruse to let Obama avoid military action in Syria.

'The current charade of international control over Bashar's chemical arsenal would be funny if it were not so blatantly perfidious. And designed not only to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to back down (from military strikes), but also to help Assad to butcher his people,' said Prince Turki, a member of the Saudi royal family and former director of Saudi intelligence."

Oh Really?

WASHINGTON, June 19, (Agencies): Senator John McCain renewed calls Monday for US military action against Syria’s regime and said President Bashar al-Assad’s forces are increasingly deploying attack helicopters against rebels.

McCain calls for US-led air war in Syria

That is one republican senator that backed action against Syria. Want to play dumb or do I need to find more GOP congressional members that took the same stance?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Only conservatives would cry about losing an "alliance" with a theocratic monarchy.

And one that manipulates terrorists to attack us, while urging us to attack nations in the middle east.

Ah bullshit.

If W had "lost" the alliance with the Saudis during his time in Office, all you liberals and so-called "progressives" would have been on him like stupid on a twoofer.

Who gives a rat's ass if Saudi Arabia is (or is not) a theocratic based monarchy? How THEY run their own part of the world is supposedly not our fuckin' business, anyway. Or so we have all been repeatedly told -- by liberals.

The point is not whether we happen to like or care for their form of "government." The point is: does our relationship with them -- in terms of international diplomacy -- help us or hurt us now that they have exposed this significant rift?

And the fact is: we do get huge volumes of fucking OIL from that region. So it has very probably been in our interest to be on more or less good terms with them.

Obumbler is fucking EVERYTHING up.

 

[Dante]

Saudi Arabia has NOT severed diplomatic, defense, and economic ties with the USA.

So what is this tbread really about?

 

[Moonglow]

Good.

Most of the people involved in 9/11 were Saudi Nationals, including Osama Bin Laden. And there's pretty good evidence they funded it.

That's the place that should have been hit. Along with the camps in Afghanistan.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY]Obama Bows to Saudi King - YouTube[/ame]

Yes. To those that have no idea why bowing is done in some societies seems to befuddle their machismo base.

 

[Kondor3]

"...they're not happy that we don't put our troops in harm's way..."

Very believable.